Why eat organic fruits and vegetables?
#52
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 942
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
https://bexar-tx.tamu.edu/HomeHort/F1...cles/DEC18.htm
If you use "google" and type in "dr. ames pesticide" you will find close to an infinite amount of links.
If you use "google" and type in "dr. ames pesticide" you will find close to an infinite amount of links.
#55
Lotion/Basket/Hose
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,368
Bikes: 1992 Schwinn Paramount
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
Arguments against organic agriculture rooted (ha!) based on the belief that the efficient practice of organic agriculture requires tilling, with resulting loss of topsoil, don't hold so much weight as they once did. The Rodale Institute, which is a sponsor of organic agricultural practices, has information on organic farming that adopts no-till mechanical practices, albeit with adjustments made in order to adhere to organic standards: https://www.newfarm.org/depts/notill/index.shtml
Obviously, if you read the FAQ, there are certain stipulations to no-till organic farming, but it's interesting to see that it is in practice.
One thing that's bothered me about the conventional/organic ag. debate is the fact that many arguments on each side of the debate are motivated by outdated modes of thinking and old data. Everyone gets all bent out of shape, because, well, people care about their food and the food supply.
I was reading stuff on the Heartland Institute's website (which is a conservative-leaning clearinghouse for skeptical inquiry into science and public policy) this morning, just for kicks, and came across this paper called "Organic Food is Not Better for You."
Link: https://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21608
The major fallacy of the paper was its use of sources from over 30 years ago in order to support its claim that organic food is fool's gold. And by using such information, from only a few sources, I really can't give that thesis' claim much credit. Of course, Heartland's got their own agenda to sell (so too the authors of that paper), but any researcher with any sense is going to look at that page and laugh.
I know that there are better sourced and written arguments against organic ag. out there – but I'm just surprised to see that a group that holds so much sway over public policy has done such a lousy job of proving its point.
Obviously, if you read the FAQ, there are certain stipulations to no-till organic farming, but it's interesting to see that it is in practice.
One thing that's bothered me about the conventional/organic ag. debate is the fact that many arguments on each side of the debate are motivated by outdated modes of thinking and old data. Everyone gets all bent out of shape, because, well, people care about their food and the food supply.
I was reading stuff on the Heartland Institute's website (which is a conservative-leaning clearinghouse for skeptical inquiry into science and public policy) this morning, just for kicks, and came across this paper called "Organic Food is Not Better for You."
Link: https://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21608
The major fallacy of the paper was its use of sources from over 30 years ago in order to support its claim that organic food is fool's gold. And by using such information, from only a few sources, I really can't give that thesis' claim much credit. Of course, Heartland's got their own agenda to sell (so too the authors of that paper), but any researcher with any sense is going to look at that page and laugh.
I know that there are better sourced and written arguments against organic ag. out there – but I'm just surprised to see that a group that holds so much sway over public policy has done such a lousy job of proving its point.
#56
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 942
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Arguments against organic agriculture rooted (ha!) based on the belief that the efficient practice of organic agriculture requires tilling, with resulting loss of topsoil, don't hold so much weight as they once did. The Rodale Institute, which is a sponsor of organic agricultural practices, has information on organic farming that adopts no-till mechanical practices, albeit with adjustments made in order to adhere to organic standards: https://www.newfarm.org/depts/notill/index.shtml
Obviously, if you read the FAQ, there are certain stipulations to no-till organic farming, but it's interesting to see that it is in practice.
One thing that's bothered me about the conventional/organic ag. debate is the fact that many arguments on each side of the debate are motivated by outdated modes of thinking and old data. Everyone gets all bent out of shape, because, well, people care about their food and the food supply.
I was reading stuff on the Heartland Institute's website (which is a conservative-leaning clearinghouse for skeptical inquiry into science and public policy) this morning, just for kicks, and came across this paper called "Organic Food is Not Better for You."
Link: https://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21608
The major fallacy of the paper was its use of sources from over 30 years ago in order to support its claim that organic food is fool's gold. And by using such information, from only a few sources, I really can't give that thesis' claim much credit. Of course, Heartland's got their own agenda to sell (so too the authors of that paper), but any researcher with any sense is going to look at that page and laugh.
I know that there are better sourced and written arguments against organic ag. out there – but I'm just surprised to see that a group that holds so much sway over public policy has done such a lousy job of proving its point.
Obviously, if you read the FAQ, there are certain stipulations to no-till organic farming, but it's interesting to see that it is in practice.
One thing that's bothered me about the conventional/organic ag. debate is the fact that many arguments on each side of the debate are motivated by outdated modes of thinking and old data. Everyone gets all bent out of shape, because, well, people care about their food and the food supply.
I was reading stuff on the Heartland Institute's website (which is a conservative-leaning clearinghouse for skeptical inquiry into science and public policy) this morning, just for kicks, and came across this paper called "Organic Food is Not Better for You."
Link: https://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21608
The major fallacy of the paper was its use of sources from over 30 years ago in order to support its claim that organic food is fool's gold. And by using such information, from only a few sources, I really can't give that thesis' claim much credit. Of course, Heartland's got their own agenda to sell (so too the authors of that paper), but any researcher with any sense is going to look at that page and laugh.
I know that there are better sourced and written arguments against organic ag. out there – but I'm just surprised to see that a group that holds so much sway over public policy has done such a lousy job of proving its point.
Listen, I am getting tired of arguing this. Organic food is great. We are however just a good locust swarm or fungus outbreak away from massive starvation. We need these chemicals if nothing else as a last resort. No one is advocating using them just for the hell of it.
#57
Lotion/Basket/Hose
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,368
Bikes: 1992 Schwinn Paramount
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
I'm not trying to start a flamewar or argument – I'm just posting my thoughts. I just have a lot invested in the topic of organic ag. as I've done a fair amount of academic research on the media's portrayal of it, that's all.
And if it means anything, I really don't even bother buying organic goods, except for leafy greens and fruit with edible peels. I suppose I would if it didn't cost so much, but I'm a poor graduate student and I don't have much money to blow on overpriced chemical-free spinach.
And if it means anything, I really don't even bother buying organic goods, except for leafy greens and fruit with edible peels. I suppose I would if it didn't cost so much, but I'm a poor graduate student and I don't have much money to blow on overpriced chemical-free spinach.
#58
Sophomoric Member
A similar thing happens with plants and livestock. Crowd a lot of the same species together, and give them lousy food, and watch what happens. You have to give them pesticides, fertilizers, fungicides, antibiotics, etc. just to keep them alive. But grow them in ecological communities of different species, based on soil with good organic content, and these plants and animals will be much better able to resist disease and pests. And it seems logical that healthier food will make healthier humans also.
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"
#59
BEEP BEEP IMMA JEEP
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Huntington Beach, California, USA
Posts: 183
Bikes: Dawes road bike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
or...... yall can eat both. EAT! EAT! EAT! ITS PHOOD! SHOVE IT DOWN YO THROAT!
#60
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Greenfield, MA
Posts: 16
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I can prove, once and for all, that organic food is worse for your health than non-organic: Everyone knows that the better a food tastes, the worse it is for your health--high fat, high sugar tastes better. Organic food tastes better than non-organic. Conclusion: Organic food is worse for your health than non-organic.
FWIW, I tend to prefer organic, but natural is more important to me--fewer chemicals added after growing and during processing. How many people, other than those with a degree in Chemistry, can actually read all those ingredients in [over-]processed food, and know what they mean?
Timothy Clough
FWIW, I tend to prefer organic, but natural is more important to me--fewer chemicals added after growing and during processing. How many people, other than those with a degree in Chemistry, can actually read all those ingredients in [over-]processed food, and know what they mean?
Timothy Clough
#61
crazy bike girl
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: CA Central Coast
Posts: 3,325
Bikes: '07 Orbea Onix, '07 Birdy Yellow, '06 Cannondale Bad Boy (stolen)
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
FWIW, I tend to prefer organic, but natural is more important to me--fewer chemicals added after growing and during processing. How many people, other than those with a degree in Chemistry, can actually read all those ingredients in [over-]processed food, and know what they mean?
I think non-organic whole foods are better for you than organic processed foods.
In order of preference for me (YMMV):
whole food, locally grown, in season, organic
#62
Ho-Jahm
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Manchester, NH
Posts: 4,228
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Roody -
I learned quite a bit about organic farming....enough not to buy organic produce. I also learned quite a bit about IPM although I doubt that you know what that is. The problem is that scientists know and understand these things. They know it from the molecular level on up. Hence why I know more about these things than any of the other passionate people on here. Once you have a good level of understanding about these things you are less likely to be scared of them. Also, once you understand the shortcomings of organic methods the more likely you are to see a problem with feeding the world that way.
I would always rather use benificial insects, crop rotations, waste inputs if they are cheap, nematodes and GM foods to avoid using chemicals. That said, chemicals are needed on occasion.
I learned quite a bit about organic farming....enough not to buy organic produce. I also learned quite a bit about IPM although I doubt that you know what that is. The problem is that scientists know and understand these things. They know it from the molecular level on up. Hence why I know more about these things than any of the other passionate people on here. Once you have a good level of understanding about these things you are less likely to be scared of them. Also, once you understand the shortcomings of organic methods the more likely you are to see a problem with feeding the world that way.
I would always rather use benificial insects, crop rotations, waste inputs if they are cheap, nematodes and GM foods to avoid using chemicals. That said, chemicals are needed on occasion.
So I ask you this, why are we temporarily producing enough food to double and triple our species population, when in thirty or forty years it will no longer be economical to do so? Two generations later and food shortages will be so bad you'll have massive starvation, all thanks to the "Green Revolution". Jared Diamonds book "Collapse" depicts this situation a thousand years ago in what is now New Mexico with the native americans that were able to grow more food when it rained more often and their population increased as a result. Then, when the 50 year cycle of rain and dry turned around on them their societies collapsed.
The green revolution is just a way to temporarily increase food production and population and will only lead to massive global collapse when the oil wells run dry. I'm glad you can be so proud of taking part in it.
Last edited by Hocam; 03-02-08 at 07:22 PM.
#63
djentleman
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,388
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 129 Post(s)
Liked 102 Times
in
66 Posts
Best solution is to grow as much of your own veggies as possible.
Even tomatoes can be grown in pots if you don't have a back yard.
Personally, I grow Asparagus, tomatoes, peppers (bell peppers, jalepenos,and habeneros), onions, beans, cucumbers, watermelons, strawberries, and grapes in my back yard. This way I know what goes on them and have fresher food than even the organic section at the local grocery store.
Even tomatoes can be grown in pots if you don't have a back yard.
Personally, I grow Asparagus, tomatoes, peppers (bell peppers, jalepenos,and habeneros), onions, beans, cucumbers, watermelons, strawberries, and grapes in my back yard. This way I know what goes on them and have fresher food than even the organic section at the local grocery store.
#64
Riding Heaven's Highways on the grand tour
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,675
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
Water spray to knock bugs off the plants. Squeeze them to kill them.
If you have snail/slug problems in your area, you can use diatomacious earth or set up slug traps using old beer as the bait.
You can use DT (which is a bacteria) to kill caterpillars and some other worms.
So, basically, there's plenty you can do to keep bugs off the plants.
If you have snail/slug problems in your area, you can use diatomacious earth or set up slug traps using old beer as the bait.
You can use DT (which is a bacteria) to kill caterpillars and some other worms.
So, basically, there's plenty you can do to keep bugs off the plants.
__________________
1 bronze, 0 silver, 1 gold
1 bronze, 0 silver, 1 gold